District Court Blocks PTO New Continuation & Claim Rules
The Eastern District of Virginia court hearing the case of Tafas v. Dudas issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 31 blocking the PTO’s implementation of its new continuation and claim rules that were to go into effect on Nov. 1. In that case, a number of plaintiffs, including Glaxo Smithkline, had joined together to block the rules.
The court examined the traditional factors in issuing a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; 3) balance of hardships between plaintiffs and defendant; 4) public interest in the injunction.
The court believed that the plaintiffs could suceed on the merits of the case. The court noted that 35 U.S.C. 120 may prohibit limiting the number continuing applications that can be filed, and that the new rules could create retroactive effects on settled rights. More specifically, the court found that plaintiffs had a vested right in the opportunity to file continuations and claims under the old rules, and an agency is not permitted to make retroactive rules. The PTO’s guidelines for preparing an examination support document were also declared vague.
On the upside for the PTO, the court did rule that the PTO’s new rules were not arbitrary and capricious.
Further, the court agreed that the uncertainty of the new rules would cause plaintiffs irreparable harm. The balance of hardships weighed in favor of the plaintiffs because they would face immediate harm once the rules were implemented, while any harm experienced by the PTO under a preliminary injunction would be gradual. Because the public interest requires a stable patent system, an injunction would be appropriate.
Thus, the PTO was enjoined from implementing its new rules. It was also enjoined from making any other new rules “restricting the number of continuing applications, the number of requests for continued examination, and the number of claims that may be filed with the PTO.”
The PTO posted a notice on its website of the decision, and noted that its examiners and staff would continue examining and processing applications under the old rules until further notice.